I agree with DD.
Posted below is a letter from the AT, that might answer some of your questions, C'da about who was responsible (or not) for the failure of the talks.
Like DD said, many of us, for a long time have held that neither the GOI or the ULFA is interested in peace. The people of Assam are, but who cares for the people. The ULFA cannot win the people over by killing the TE managers or bombing and maiming innocent people.
If the GOI forces go awry, they are held responsible and someone pays, but when the ulfa cadres go on a killing spree, they seem to be held up as paragons of virtue by tunnel-visioned people, who see the ulfa doing no wrong.
The question is, is the ulfa fighting the GOI forces or the people of Assam, and who are they protecting?
Here is the letter:
ULFA not interested in talks
Sir,– The ULFA constituted 'Peoples' Consultative Group' (PCG) has now decided to pull out of negotiations between the banned outfit and the Government of India, accusing and abusing the government of its flip-flop attitude to the extent of going back on its commitment by abruptly re-imposing army operation against the outfit. The PCG has now alleged that the government announcement capped a series of blows to the peace process starting with the murder of a tea garden manager by ULFA militants in Tinsukia district of upper Asom last weekend. Sadly enough, the PCG and a section of the ULFA's supporters have found fault with the government for its decision to resume army operations against the ULFA militants, but not with the banned outfit which took the advantage of the temporary suspension of army operations, ordered by the government to launch a vigorous drive for extortion of money in various parts of upper Asom, and killing a tea garden manager who could not pay the demanded amount of money to them. Then what kind of peace was being maintained by the banned outfit in response to the good-will shown by the government by unilaterally withdrawing army operations in the state?
The PCG was pleading for ULFA's demand to release their five executive members who are now in jail, to enable them to participate in the proposed peace talks with the government, and the government made it crystal clear that in order to do so, the ULFA top-brass must send an official communique to the Indian government expressing their will to participate in the peace talk with the government. Why this simple condition set by the Govt, could not be conceded to? This attitude of the militants amply proves that they are not interested in taking part in the proposed peace talk with the Govt. Since both the leaders of the outfit are in foreign countries, they cannot take any such decision to abjure violence against the Govt of India. But our people are simply accusing and abusing our own government, which is not supposed to take anything and everything lightly. —Yours etc., JIBON SAIKIA, Chenikuthi, Guwahati.
Sir,– The ULFA constituted 'Peoples' Consultative Group' (PCG) has now decided to pull out of negotiations between the banned outfit and the Government of India, accusing and abusing the government of its flip-flop attitude to the extent of going back on its commitment by abruptly re-imposing army operation against the outfit. The PCG has now alleged that the government announcement capped a series of blows to the peace process starting with the murder of a tea garden manager by ULFA militants in Tinsukia district of upper Asom last weekend. Sadly enough, the PCG and a section of the ULFA's supporters have found fault with the government for its decision to resume army operations against the ULFA militants, but not with the banned outfit which took the advantage of the temporary suspension of army operations, ordered by the government to launch a vigorous drive for extortion of money in various parts of upper Asom, and killing a tea garden manager who could not pay the demanded amount of money to them. Then what kind of peace was being maintained by the banned outfit in response to the good-will shown by the government by unilaterally withdrawing army operations in the state?
The PCG was pleading for ULFA's demand to release their five executive members who are now in jail, to enable them to participate in the proposed peace talks with the government, and the government made it crystal clear that in order to do so, the ULFA top-brass must send an official communique to the Indian government expressing their will to participate in the peace talk with the government. Why this simple condition set by the Govt, could not be conceded to? This attitude of the militants amply proves that they are not interested in taking part in the proposed peace talk with the Govt. Since both the leaders of the outfit are in foreign countries, they cannot take any such decision to abjure violence against the Govt of India. But our people are simply accusing and abusing our own government, which is not supposed to take anything and everything lightly. —Yours etc., JIBON SAIKIA, Chenikuthi, Guwahati.
On 10/6/06, Chan Mahanta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "---ULFA is as much to blame for this sputtering talk process."
Pray tell us how it could be 'as-much' ?
*** Was it ULFA who STOPPED the dialog?
*** Was it ULFA which reneged on what it assured the PCG with?
*** Was it ULFA, whose right hand does not know what its left is doing, speaking from both sides of its mouth ?
*** Is it the ULFA that breaks off peace overtures and talks of renewing it a week later, time and again?
The attempt to spread the blame equally, unfortunately does not fly. It is a lead balloon at best :-).
At 6:08 AM -0700 10/6/06, Dilip/Dil Deka wrote:Paraphrasing:"I can't believe these ULFA yo-yo's.Is this how the leadership of a wanna-be sovereign nation runs?Amazing!"ULFA is as much to blame for this sputtering talk process. As discussed in this net so many times, neither side nor any of the ancillaries is interested in killing the golden goose.Dilip
Chan Mahanta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I can't believe these GoI yo-yo's.Is this how the govt. of a wanna-be super-power runs?Amazing!cm
_______________________________________________
assam mailing list
assam@assamnet.org
http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org
_______________________________________________ assam mailing list assam@assamnet.org http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org
